According to the makers of “Zeitgeist, the Movie,” the worship of Jesus is explainable as another outcrop of apotheosis (human figure exalted to divine status and therefore worthy of worship), as just another divine figure in the “religious cafeteria”[1] of the first century pantheon of gods, or perhaps a product of astrology. But is this explanation reconcilable to the actual historical and demographical evidence of first century Palestine and of the earliest surviving Christian writings? No. The earliest demonstration of the “cultic” worship of Jesus is by Second-Temple Jewish believers.[2] Though, as will be shown, this is an extremely important piece of Christianity’s development, “Zeitgeist, the Movie” completely ignores this fact.

The Second-Temple Jewish believers were unquestionably influenced culturally by the Hellenism brought from the Roman occupation of their lands.[3] But what historians must do is look at exactly how these Jewish believers were influenced, and in what areas of life. One area in which they were influenced was language. There are Greek copies of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint; clearly demonstrating that some of the Jewish people spoke/read Greek. However, it does not follow that these people were therefore influenced in religious practice. This kind of conclusion requires more specific evidence.

What we do know about Second-Temple Jewish believers is that their devotion to the “One God” stuck out amongst the menagerie of pagan deities surrounding them. The Jewish adherence to God’s uniqueness can be seen in various non-rabbinic texts of the Jewish provenance: Sibylline Oracles (3.11-12, 545-61; cf. 4.27-32; 5.172-76; 493-500), Letter of Aristeas (132-38), Wisdom of Solomon, (13-15), and references in Philo and Josephus.[4] The First Book of Maccabees also describes Jewish devotion to the One God specifically with regard to the Hellenistic influences (1 Maccabees 2:15-26). From the Old Testament, worship of any other gods was established as detestable and vile. “If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed,” as found in Deuteronomy 8:19. Also, in Deuteronomy 13: 6-9, “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.” So what can be inferred from these evidences is the believers of Second-Temple Judaism not only disallowed influences of the pagan religions on their belief structure, but also vehemently opposed this activity.

The young Christian movement, located entirely within Second-Temple Judaism, associated Jesus with worship of and devotion to the One God; while at the same time showing disdain for worship of the multiple deities of the Roman environment. The earliest writings of Christianity (c. A.D. 50-60) by the apostle Paul demonstrate this very idea. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul describes his praise of the new believers for their conversion “to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, who he raised from the dead – Jesus who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1:9-10). Also, in 1 Corinthians 8 through 10, Paul addresses the Gentiles with regard to leaving behind their pagan religious practices. He advises them to completely shun any former pagan practices in light of their conversion to the one true God (through Jesus Christ).

The idea of abandoning all other deities was uncommon and dissimilar to the pagan mystery religions. The apotheosis stories and other pagan deities cannot show the same devotion to worship of one God. The earliest Christian writings disdain these very religions for their practices and establish a totally new kind of “theology”; namely, Jesus was to be identified and worshiped as the one, true God, not supplanting God, but as a part of God’s identity. The makers of “Zeitgeist, the Movie” need to satisfy the question of why the earliest Christians, who were Second-Temple Jewish believers, would create a theology influenced by the pagan deities in light of the historical evidence that these people abhorred pagan worship and deities. Speculation and surface similarities of worship practices will not suffice to explain the historical Jewish faith or the Christian sect that developed from Judaism in the first century.

MJ

[1] Hurtado, Larry. How Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Cambridge, Eerdmans Publishing Company: 2005, Pg. 25
[2] The name “Second Temple Judaism” has become popular in more modern scholarship to describe the religion of the Jewish people who practiced their faith in the time frame of the rebuilding of Solomon’s temple to at least the time of the destruction of this second temple in AD 70.
[3] For further study: Martin Hengel. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.
[4] Hurtado. How Did Jesus Become a God? Pg.118
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

10 thoughts on “Flawed Theory in Zeitgeist, the Movie

  1. Zeitgeist essentially says that all religion rose out of this idea that light is fighting against darkness. This began when humans recognized the cycle of light and dark due to the sun. Sun worship then began as the sun brought light and, essentially, life.

    It is not a matter of why Christians denounced the Pagan religions. This seems like a matter of common sense. If you think that you are worshipping the one true God, then you are not going to encourage people to worship idols. Is it not human nature to think that you have the absolute truth, and that everyone else is wrong?

    The real issues here have not been addressed. How can the cross imagery be ignored? What about when Jesus talks of the “age” of Aquarius? What about the fish imagery and Pisces? What about the fact that no historians actually mention Jesus specifically? How do you explain the fact that the sun falls in the sky, sits for three days, and rises again? What about all the coinciding dates?

    The Jewish people were in Egypt for a very long time and were subjected to all of their deities. It makes SENSE.

  2. Steven,

    Zeitgeist essentially says that all religion rose out of this idea that light is fighting against darkness. This began when humans recognized the cycle of light and dark due to the sun. Sun worship then began as the sun brought light and, essentially, life.

    What I want is the historical trail of evidence to prove these ideas true. I do not see how it is responsible historiography to suggest there is a connection, use that connection as proof, and ignore bits of history that put a kink in the theory.

    If the ancient people of Abraham rejected every other god, what were they worshipping that coud be related back to this proposal of the struggle between light and dark. The God who spoke to Abraham did not mention a struggle. He said, “I Am.” The texts concerning this God also showed contempt for that very kind of thinking. How does the history of the Jewish faith concerning this God come directly as a result of the struggle between light and dark? I need that connection evidenced, because historically, the Jewish people have stuck out as religiously “different” from the previous and contemporary ancient religions. Why did their contemporaries find them different? I am not referring to “our gods are better than your gods.” I am referring to “Israel’s God is unlike or not able to be compared to everything else.” It is important to explain the differences in these belief structures as well as the similarities.

    How can the cross imagery be ignored? What about when Jesus talks of the “age” of Aquarius? What about the fish imagery and Pisces? What about the fact that no historians actually mention Jesus specifically? How do you explain the fact that the sun falls in the sky, sits for three days, and rises again? What about all the coinciding dates?

    You have labeled these as the real issues. Are they? I am not ‘ignoring’ them, but rather getting to the root of them: historical evidence. The real issues to me are based in what the peer reviewed, journal-writing, published archaeologists, anthropologists, textual critics, and historians are saying about the evidence. When I looked up the references for “Zeitgeist, the Movie” I remember finding one or two people that could even come close to being considered as such (plus, one guy who had been found guilty of using his atheist website to traffic illegal ID’s for foreigners). This is not meant as a “slam,” but as a check on scholarship and credentials. Much of the movie was based on the work of Bruno Bauer, Sir James Frazer, Joseph Campbell, and current internet authors (though this was not included in the credentials). I am not trying to exacerbate you, I desire to keep in mind where this material is coming from and why I question the sources.

    Are you absolutely positive no historians mention Jesus specifically? I have cited references for Jesus from outside early Christian writings. Where are you getting this information?

    The Jewish people were in Egypt for a very long time and were subjected to all of their deities. It makes SENSE.

    Actually, it does not make sense that these Jewish people came out of Egypt with a belief in one God. We should be able to find many gods that were acceptable in their history. Instead, the Biblical texts tell the story over and over of how Israel was punished for their idolatry. In the Maccabean wars, the Jewish people were killed for their unwavering adherence to only one God. Jesus was put to death for blaspheming God because he equated himself with God. Saul of Tarsus, a Second-Temple Jew, was on a mission to get rid of the young Christian sect that equated a man with God, before his conversion to that sect. This history is not reconcilable with the theories of Zeitgeist. To me, it sounds like the issue is really that you do not trust that we can know anything about the history of the Jewish faith, Christian faith, or any belief structure.

    Thanks, Steven.

    MJ

  3. In response to your first statement, there is much scholarly evidence in:

    Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement) (Hardcover)

    It is an expansion of a dissertation that J. Glen Taylor submitted to Yale. If you’re looking for scholarly evidence, that is a good place to start.

    Now, as for having “historical evidence” of cross imagery or the sun’s position being important – I really do not understand this. The Christian symbol is one of two things: the cross or a fish. You can look at any church and figure this out. As for the zodiac symbol being a cross, and pisces being a fish – is it necessary to cite a peer reviewed journal on these things? I will find proof for you if you require it.

    Here is another good site that expounds on the zeitgeist idea.

    http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

    I know it’s not “scholarly,” but the only text referenced is the Bible, so hopefully it will be ok.

    Finally, the Jews coming out of Egypt could very well have stuck to their belief in one god. The sensical part, though, is that their messiah figure shared a lot of traits with Egyptian “myths.” That is the commonality. I’ll get you proof of that tomorrow if I get the chance. Right now I’m tired!

    Thanks,
    Steven

  4. Crossposted from the group:

    Great post! I’m glad you’re tackling this subject. Atheists who use this argument really confuse me – they deny God’s existence based on a lack of evidence, but they’re more than willing to accept the words of a few “scholars” with absolutely zero backing evidence whatsoever.

    From what I understand, most of the “Jesus = pagan god” claims come from the work of a few 19th century writers who had never even seen the texts they refer to.

  5. Is it not human nature to think that you have the absolute truth, and that everyone else is wrong?

    This is going to be a tough statement to prove. I do not agree with it because of my own experience in attempting to find truth. Also, you have some great philosophers who would and would not fit into that generalization. Socrates, for instance, would not fit.

    The Jewish people were in Egypt for a very long time and were subjected to all of their deities.

    A great portion of the Old Testament Biblical texts speak of Israel’s problems with idolatry because of this exposure and exposure to other foreign gods. And yet, the practices and rituals of worshiping created things is always recognized as idolatrous and condemned in the texts.

    I could not access the article you sent me. I did find a review of it in the Scholarly Journal Archives (www.jstor.org). Here are a few pieces of the review that say what I am trying to say a million times more coherently:

    Unfortunately, his [Glen Taylor, the author] work has
    taken directions that, although not necessarily invalidating his
    claims, make his efforts far less compelling or useful than they
    potentially could be. Perhaps most disturbing is his failure to
    consider the dynamics of metaphoric language in conveying
    the nature of Israel’s god. Nowhere does he discuss whether the
    use of solar terms in conjunction with Yahweh indicates a view
    of Yahweh as sun and nothing else; nor does he indicate, if solar
    language is not exclusive, how it might converge with other
    metaphors for divinity. Indeed, his view of figurative language
    is rather dismissive, with the potential for exploring the meaning
    of symbolic representations of Yahweh never understood
    or pursued. He rarely interacts with the penetrating questions
    that drive current discussions about the history and character of
    Yahweh.

    Similarly,
    in analyzing those objects and texts for which he asserts
    the existence of a solar dimension, the highly tentative and
    conjectural nature of his argument is all too obvious in his
    repeated use of the vocabulary of uncertainty; terms such as
    “plausible:’ “surmise,” “can’t be certain:’ “perhaps,” “suggests,”
    “appears:’ and “could be,” among others, are used with disturbing
    frequency.

    Further, his use of possible-but not definite-
    links between Yahweh and the sun in one text is too
    often used, in circular fashion, to support claims for such connection
    in others. Finally, his assumption that the symbolic
    value attached to artistic motifs in Egyptian art would be the
    same in a Palestinian setting is questionable in light of theories
    about cross-cultural migration of symbols.

    Given the human recognition of the sun’s awesome power,
    the presence of sun imagery in the repertoire of biblical language
    for expressing the might of Yahweh would be expected.

    But it does not follow that these symbols mean that the worship of Yahweh was a worship of the Sun transferred into “Yahweh” language. This theory needs some serious support from ancient documents; certainly documents emanating out of ancient Israel. All other sun worshipers recognize the sun as a part of the god they worship, the Jews claimed that kind of worship to be idolatrous.

    Let’s suppose I grant the idea of taking a metaphor of the sun representing God’s power in the Biblical texts to mean that the writers were describing a worship of the sun in disguise or as sun worship evolved. Then why should I stop at just interpreting religious material this way? Would it be plausible to extrapolate that same idea (or standard of criticism) to other literary texts utilizing metaphors of light/dark or sun/moon to suggest various types of sun worship by other people? Does this not seem problematic to you? Great works of literature often use either Biblical allusions and/or metaphorical allusions to represent a concept, but this does not link that idea back to a former concept of sun or other kinds of worship. Think of some examples we could come up with…as in the You Tube video excerpt sent by the previous anonymous post author. That video had sun worship emanating from the Washington Monument, the dollar bill, the AOL symbol, the CBS symbol, the Vatican architecture, and the “Chi-Rho” symbol from Emperor Constantine’s rule. Here’s the problem with this kind of correlation: I can probably create a connection between almost any symbol and/or metaphor back to some previous symbol and/or religious concept. Granted, at first glance, the case on the surface level of connections looks like it has potential, but it fails against the recorded histories of Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Josephus, and the earliest surviving Biblical manuscripts (I will write on these documents next post). The theory of connections must be checked against the entire cultural/historical backdrop of that particular people group. There is little to no consideration of anthropology in the Zeitgeist material.

    As I am studying the Jewish and Greco-Roman beliefs of the first century, I am finding the Jewish belief structure held to the tenet of one God (at the core of their doctrine), and that this belief was considered by the outside observers of first century Judaism as strikingly different from the worship of the gods of all other people. The Jews did not observe the worship of a “highest god” like nearly all their neighbors, but they had a devout adherence to only one God being worthy of any kind of worship. This is not similar.

    What is being speculated by this theory is that the Israelites, and later Christians, were worshiping the same basic mythological god(s) as all other people groups; the Jewish God was just repackaged and “suped-up.” However, the other people groups who recorded their observations of the Jewish believers did not see a similarity, at all. The writers I am referencing were the Roman historians of the first and second century. They did not see a similarity (when in fact they did see similarities between Roman worship and Egyptian worship). So what are we attempting to say? We know better today about these similarities than the people who wrote their observations back then. But why should we think that?

    Thanks,
    MJ

    Endnotes:

    Reviewed Work(s):
    Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel
    by J. Glen Taylor
    Carol Meyers
    Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 115, No. 4. (Oct. – Dec., 1995), pp. 719-720.
    Stable URL:
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28199510%2F12%29115%3A4%3C719%3AYATSBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

  6. Socrates would fit, as, Socrates was had knowledge of his own ignorance. That was his whole thing, he was ignorant and he knew that. I.e. Socrates was that kind of person that would say “Is it not human nature to think that you have the absolute truth, and that everyone else is wrong?”

    That’s all I have to say, for now.

  7. JFunk,

    It has been awhile since I read him, so does he really believe that the only truth he knows is the truth of his ignorance? And if he is ignorant, than how does he know the truth of his ignorance? However, now I am only offering musings about his beliefs. Perhaps he really thought it was human nature to think yourself correct and others wrong. Yet, that seems a bit of a light statement for him without some kind of qualification. Do you know a particular writing or dialogue of his I could find that in?

    Thanks,
    MJ

Comments are closed.